MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129840937 · doi:10.56105/cjsae.v20i2.1108

Informal learning in "Performative" times: Insights from empirical research on Canadian teachers' work and learning

2007· article· en· W2129840937 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformative utteranceWork (physics)Informal learningSociologyInformal educationPedagogyEmpirical researchAdult LearningAdult educationExperiential learningPsychologyHigher educationEpistemologyPolitical scienceAestheticsArtPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper makes two contributions. First, it develops a typology of “informal learning” that illuminates the different discourses of the hidden, yet important (as well as problematic), orientations to informal learning. This typology is then used to deepen analyses of teachers’ workplace “informal learning” derived from a 10-year empirical study on Canadian teachers’ work and learning. Three main themes are identified: the difficulty of differentiating informal and formal learning at the empirical level; the limitations of the research methods used to illuminate more tacit levels of learning; and the challenges to collaborative learning under the continued institutional rigidity of schooling. Additionally, under present conditions of work intensification, a significant portion of teachers’ informal learning is reactive rather than deliberative. The paper suggests that although it may be seductive for some teachers, or even necessary for teachers without secure positions, to take up the subject position of “empowered lifelong learner”, this move cannot be assumed to represent increased autonomy. Résumé Cet article est doublement utile. D’abord, il établit une typologie de «l’apprentissage non formel» qui fait ressortir les différents discours sur les orientations tacites, mais tout de même importantes (et problématiques) dans ce domaine. Cette typologie sert par la suite de base à une analyse plus approfondie de «l’apprentissage non formel» des enseignants à partir d’une étude canadienne sur le travail et le perfectionnement professionnel des enseignants, qui a duré 10 ans. L’article identifie trois thématiques : la difficulté inhérente à distinguer l’apprentissage formel de l’apprentissage non formel sur le plan pratique; les limites des méthodes de recherche utilisées dans l’identification de niveaux d’apprentissage moins évidents; et les défis liés à l’apprentissage coopératif dans le contexte de rigidité institutionnelle constante de l’école. De surcroît, à une époque d’intensification du travail, bon nombre d’enseignants optent pour l’apprentissage informel par obligation plutôt que par choix. L’article suggère enfin que même s’il peut être séduisant pour certains enseignants, ou même essentiel pour les enseignants sans assignation permanente d’opter pour l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie, cela ne signifie toutefois une plus grande autonomie.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it